tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/radiation-sickness-26919/articlesRadiation sickness – The Conversation2023-01-30T05:34:36Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1987612023-01-30T05:34:36Z2023-01-30T05:34:36ZA tiny radioactive capsule is lost on a highway in Western Australia. Here’s what you need to know<p>On January 12 a truck pulled out of Rio Tinto’s Gudai-Darri iron ore mine in the Pilbara region of Western Australia and drove 1,400km south to Perth, arriving on January 16. </p>
<p>Nine days later, on January 25, it was discovered the truck had lost a rather special piece of cargo somewhere along the way: a tiny capsule containing a highly radioactive substance, used in a radiation gauge on the mine site.</p>
<p>A bolt and screws in the package were also missing, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/29/new-technology-deployed-in-search-for-tiny-potentially-deadly-missing-radioactive-capsule">authorities suspect</a> the fixings shook loose during the trip and the capsule fell out of the hole left by the bolt.</p>
<p>Western Australia’s Department of Fire and Emergency Services are now searching for the missing ceramic capsule, which at 8mm by 6mm is smaller than a ten-cent piece.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1618912394968981512"}"></div></p>
<h2>What is the capsule and what was it used for?</h2>
<p>The capsule contains caesium-137, a radioactive isotope which spits out electrons (or beta radiation) and high-energy photons (or gamma radiation). The beta radiation is blocked by the shell of the capsule, but the gamma radiation streams right through it.</p>
<p>The source has an activity of 19 gigabecquerels, which means it emits about 19 billion high-energy photons per second.</p>
<p>Caesium-137 is dangerous stuff, but the radiation it produces can also be very useful. It is used in some cancer treatments, for measuring the thickness of metal or the flow of liquids, and – as in this case, reportedly – for calibrating radiation gauges.</p>
<h2>Radioactive sources are common, but they rarely go missing</h2>
<p>Transporting radioactive sources is a commonplace activity. Each month, the Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation (ANSTO) ships some <a href="https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/nrwmf-infopack/nrwmf-transportation-of-radioactive-materials.pdf">2,000 packages</a> containing nuclear medicine around Australia. There are also several private companies who transport radioactive sources.</p>
<p>There are well-established procedures and strict regulations for making sure this happens safely. At the national level, this is overseen by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), while each state and territory also has <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/regulation-and-licensing/regulation/state-territory-regulators">its own regulator</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/are-bananas-really-radioactive-an-expert-clears-up-common-misunderstandings-about-radiation-193211">Are bananas really 'radioactive'? An expert clears up common misunderstandings about radiation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>You need a licence to own and use a radioactive source at a particular location. If you’re moving it, you need to follow <a href="https://www.arpansa.gov.au/regulation-and-licensing/licensing/information-for-licence-holders/regulatory-guides/regulatory-guide-transport-radioactive">detailed rules</a> for safety, packaging and record-keeping. </p>
<p>Radioactive sources which are lost, stolen, or otherwise leave regulated control are known as “orphan sources”. Each year, the <a href="https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/overview-of-the-cns-global-incidents-and-trafficking-database/">CNS Global Incidents and Trafficking Database</a> records 150 or so such incidents around the world.</p>
<p>Most of these incidents are due to carelessness or disregard for proper procedures. </p>
<h2>What’s the risk?</h2>
<p>The source doesn’t pose much of a danger to casual passers-by. If you were standing a metre away from it for an hour, you would receive a radiation dose of around 1 millisievert. That’s about one-twentieth of the dose people who work with radiation are allowed to get in a year.</p>
<p>If you were much closer to the capsule, say 10cm or so, you’d be getting around 100 millisievert per hour, which could do you some real damage.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-difference-between-radiation-and-radioactivity-20014">Explainer: the difference between radiation and radioactivity</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, the most danger would occur if the capsule were broken open. In an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident">infamous incident in Brazil in 1987</a>, a (much larger) caesium-137 capsule was stolen from an abandoned hospital and punctured. The glowing blue dust inside was a source of fascination to everyone who saw it, of whom 250 were contaminated with radiation and four died.</p>
<p>So if you see a small capsule anywhere along the Great Northern Highway, keep your distance. Don’t panic, but do notify the authorities.</p>
<h2>The long half-life of the missing capsule</h2>
<p>The search for the capsule will be a difficult one. Just as the source won’t be dangerous unless you’re close to it, it won’t be easily registered by gamma-ray detectors unless they are in close proximity.</p>
<p>Authorities say they now have vehicle-mounted detectors to aid their efforts, but scanning 1,400 km of road is a formidable task. Searchers have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/29/new-technology-deployed-in-search-for-tiny-potentially-deadly-missing-radioactive-capsule">conceded</a> “there is the potential that we may not find this”.</p>
<p>What then? Caesium-137 has a half-life of just over 30 years, which means the source’s radiation output will halve every 30 years, until it disappears completely. </p>
<p>It will still pose a risk for the next century or so. Will anyone remember? If you came across a tiny cylinder on the road today, you’d know to keep your distance – but what about if you found it in five years, or in 20 years?</p>
<p>Who remembers Australia’s last orphan source incident? It occurred in 2019, when a radioactive moisture detection gauge was <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/a-gauge-swiped-from-a-vehicle-in-qld-has-sparked-a-serious-health-warning/news-story/64061e1cc00c2e68836ac0fcaadf1f88">taken from a ute in Ipswich</a>. As far as I know, it has never been found.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198761/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Edward Obbard is a senior lecturer and the program coordinator in nuclear engineering at UNSW Sydney. He has received funding from the Sir William Tyree Foundation for the Tyree Scholars in Nuclear Engineering Program, which sponsors Australian graduate students to undertake masters study and PhD research in nuclear engineering.</span></em></p>The lost radioactive source may never be found.Edward Obbard, Senior Lecturer in Nuclear Engineering, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1191102019-06-21T12:04:41Z2019-06-21T12:04:41ZTen times the Chernobyl television series lets artistic licence get in the way of facts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280730/original/file-20190621-61737-19lf6e3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=18%2C0%2C2047%2C1185&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The memorial to the Chernobyl disaster in front of the reactor, now encased in its new containment shield.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/franganillo/38342070546/">Jorge Franganillo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Audiences have been gripped by Chernobyl, the HBO/Sky series that charts the events and aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster of April 1986. </p>
<p>I have coordinated a number of international research projects on the impacts of the Chernobyl accident, and made dozens of visits to the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl. There has been considerable praise for the attention to detail in the sets, props and clothes that helped <a href="https://www.curbed.com/2019/6/7/18656641/chernobyl-hbo-miniseries-set-design-disaster-soviet">immerse viewers in a sense of being in late-period Soviet society</a> – including from <a href="https://twitter.com/SlavaMalamud/status/1132029943297265664">those that remember it first hand</a>. But there are also errors, or aspects of how the story plays out that have been invented to add drama to the story.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s9APLXM9Ei8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h3>1. The helicopter crash</h3>
<p>The dramatic scene early on in which a helicopter crashes while attempting to fly over the reactor – apparently due to the intense radiation – never happened. But helicopter video footage taken the time shows static and distortions generated by the intense radiation field above the reactor core, and there were <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/04/obituaries/anatoly-grishchenko-pilot-at-chernobyl-53.html">reports</a> of pilots getting radiation sickness from their sorties.</p>
<h3>2. The ‘Bridge of Death’</h3>
<p>The unforgivably late response of the authorities meant that citizens of Pripyat were out in the open after the accident – and some did go to the so-called “bridge of death” nearer the plant to watch the fire. But I’ve seen <a href="https://thebulletin.org/2019/05/the-human-drama-of-chernobyl/">no evidence that all the people on the bridge died</a>, and no evidence that radiation doses there were so dangerously high.</p>
<h3>3. Radiation sickness in Pripyat</h3>
<p>In fact, on average, residents of Pripyat received an average dose of around 30 millisieverts (mSv) – about the same as three whole-body CT scans - due to the late warning about the danger. There is a scene in the local hospital that appears to show children suffering from radiation sickness: experts <a href="https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf">confirmed 134 cases of radiation sickness</a> among the firemen and plant operators, but <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10512-012-9607-5">none among the population of Pripyat</a>.</p>
<h3>4. ‘You’re sitting next to a nuclear reactor’</h3>
<p>In highly emotional scenes we see the pregnant wife of a firefighter visiting her husband suffering from acute radiation syndrome in Moscow Hospital Number Six. This happened, and is one of <a href="https://www.rferl.org/a/belarusian-nobel-laureate-says-hbo-series-has-completely-changed-perception-of-chernobyl/29997496.html">numerous first-hand accounts</a> the series draws from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/apr/25/energy.ukraine">Voices from Chernobyl</a> by the Belarussian journalist and Nobel laureate Svetlana Alexievich. But the drama implies that the baby absorbed such high doses of radiation from the husband that it subsequently died. A US doctor who helped treat the plant workers and firefighters says that the patients <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/11/top-ucla-doctor-denounces-depiction-of-radiation-in-hbos-chernobyl-as-wrong-and-dangerous/#1b6a7e681e07">didn’t present a significant radiation risk to staff and visitors</a>. Studies after Chernobyl have found <a href="https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/">no convincing evidence</a> that pregnancy outcomes were affected by radiation exposures. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280691/original/file-20190621-61756-1rclkyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280691/original/file-20190621-61756-1rclkyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280691/original/file-20190621-61756-1rclkyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280691/original/file-20190621-61756-1rclkyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280691/original/file-20190621-61756-1rclkyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280691/original/file-20190621-61756-1rclkyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280691/original/file-20190621-61756-1rclkyw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Monument to the Liquidators in Chernobyl, erected to commemorate the clean-up crew and, here, the firefighters who responded to the disaster. The inscription reads ‘To those who saved the world’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Famagusta Gazette</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h3>5. Reactors aren’t nuclear bombs</h3>
<p>The fears of a nuclear explosion in the two to four-megatonne range due to reactor core meltdown, which, it was claimed, would destroy the nearby city of Kiev and make large areas of Europe uninhabitable, turned out to be wrong. Nuclear power stations <a href="https://science.fusion4freedom.com/why-a-nuclear-reactor-cannot-explode-like-an-atom-bomb/">don’t explode like nuclear bombs</a> – and certainly not thermonuclear ones in the megatonne range. In any case, such an explosion wouldn’t have destroyed Minsk, nor would it have made Europe uninhabitable. </p>
<h3>6. The divers</h3>
<p>The <a href="https://www.chernobylwel.com/blog-detail/113/who-saved-europe-the-three-unsung-heroes-of-chernobyl">three heroic men</a> who worked to drain the tanks of water below the primary containment chamber to prevent nuclear fuel coming into contact with water which was believed would cause an explosion did so in vain. Subsequent <a href="https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/10153756#page=6">analysis</a> found that the tanks were already mostly empty, and the interaction of the melting fuel with the water might even have helped cool it.</p>
<h3>7. The helicopter pilots</h3>
<p>The incredibly brave attempts by helicopter pilots to drop boron, sand and lead onto the melting fuel rods likely helped to put out the fire burning in the graphite moderator, but it <a href="https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/10153756#page=6">largely missed the nuclear fuel and the melted core</a> which, after burning through the primary containment, cooled down by itself.</p>
<h3>8. The miners</h3>
<p>The brave miners who made huge efforts to dig a tunnel under the reactor building to install a heat exchanger to remove heat from under the core also did so in vain: the heat exchanger was never used as <a href="https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/10153756#page=6">the core cooled before it was installed</a>. The risk of radioactivity entering the water table under the reactor (sited near a lake and river system) was found to be <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dmitri_Bugai/publication/266021626_Risk-Cost_Analysis_of_Strontium-90_Migration_to_Water_Wells_at_the_Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant/links/542300290cf238c6ea6e2f88/Risk-Cost-Analysis-of-Strontium-90-Migration-to-Water-Wells-at-the-Chernobyl-Nuclear-Power-Plant.pdf">elevated, but still low</a>. </p>
<h3>9. The liquidators</h3>
<p>At the end of the series, claims about the aftermath shown onscreen imply that no studies were made of the <a href="https://news.sky.com/video/the-real-chernobyl-11745079">hundreds of thousands of liquidators who cleaned up after the accident</a>. In fact there were <a href="https://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf">many studies of this group</a>, and they have proved inconclusive on whether there was an increase in cancer. It is likely they did experience an increased cancer risk, but this was very small compared to the many other health risks they faced and continue to face, including cardiovascular disease, smoking and – a general problem across former Soviet countries – <a href="https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/34/6/824/192703">excess alcohol consumption</a>. </p>
<h3>10. Failings</h3>
<p>Scientists come out as heroes from the show. While there were countless heroes, including scientists, in the aftermath of Chernobyl, ultimately the Soviet scientific community as well as its political system was responsible for the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx">design flaws of the RBMK reactor</a>, the lack of safety culture, and unforgivable lack of preparedness for such an accident.</p>
<h2>A cautionary tale</h2>
<p>It is important not to underestimate the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Studies have found an increase in thyroid cancer, mainly due to the failure of the Soviet authorities to prevent consumption of products contaminated with short-lived radioactive iodine-131 in the weeks after the accident. </p>
<p>Recent <a href="https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2017/Chernobyl_WP_2017.pdf">analyses of affected populations up to 2015</a> found 5,000 out of a total of 20,000 thyroid cancer cases to be due to radiation. Fortunately, though serious, thyroid cancer is treatable in 99% of cases. Some reports suggest that the consequences of relocating hundreds of thousands of people, the economic consequences of abandonment of land and the understandable fear of radiation have had <a href="https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/">greater negative effects than the direct health consequences of radiation</a>.</p>
<p>Chernobyl the series is amazing to watch, and the reconstruction of events before and during the accident was remarkable. But we should remember that it is a drama, not a documentary. In the years since 1986, many myths have been perpetuated about the accident, and these myths have <a href="https://www.unicef.org/newsline/chernobylreport.pdf">unquestionably hindered the recovery of the affected populations</a>. </p>
<p>More than 30 years on, this recovery continues. If it is to have any chance of success it must be based not on the emotion and the drama, but on the best available scientific evidence. <a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/oxford-martin-restatement-5-a-restatement-of-the-natural-science-evidence-base-concerning-the-health-effects-of-low-level-ionizing-radiation/">Evidence</a> which shows that, except at the extreme doses which plant operators, firemen and helicopter pilots received during the Chernobyl disaster, the risks of radiation are <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-7-49">tiny compared to other health risks we all face in our lives</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119110/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jim Smith has received funding from the UK Natural Environment Research Council "Radioactivity and the Environment Programme" which is part supported by Radioactive Waste Management Ltd. and the Environment Agency of England and Wales. He has also done small consultancy projects for Horizon Nuclear Power and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency.</span></em></p>Documentary or drama? The HBO/Sky series is gripping watching, but sometimes facts make way for artistic licence.Jim Smith, Professor of Environmental Science, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1048952018-10-19T10:37:03Z2018-10-19T10:37:03ZWhy radiation protection experts are concerned over EPA proposal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240858/original/file-20181016-165891-rno03j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nuclear reactor on the Hudson River, north of New York City.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nuclear-reactor-on-hudson-river-north-334590773?src=uiS_oJPNzBocrh7NZXyI4g-1-12">mandritoiu / Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Takata Corporation sold defective air bag inflators that resulted in the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-takata-bankruptcy-japan/japanese-airbag-maker-takata-files-for-bankruptcy-gets-chinese-backing-idUSKBN19G0ZG">death of 16 people</a> in the United States and a massive recall of cars. While it was rare for the air bags to fail, the brutal consequences of this defective device in even minor collisions was easy to recognize. But the effects of low-dose ionizing radiation – high energy waves or particles that can strip electrons from atoms and physically damage cells and the DNA within – on people’s health is much harder to see, and prove.</p>
<p>When the <a href="https://apnews.com/6a573b6b020e453c90ecd5e84aa23f57">Associated Press reported</a> that the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency solicited the advice of a controversial toxicologist, Edward Calabrese, to consider changes to how it regulates radiation, it sent shock waves through the radiation protection community. Calabrese is well known for his unconventional and <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/10/attack-radiation-geneticists-triggers-furor">outlying view</a> that low-dose radiation is not dangerous. </p>
<p>I’m a physicist at the <a href="https://www.nonproliferation.org/">James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies</a> at the <a href="https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/">Middlebury Institute of International Studies</a> who focuses on risks of emerging technology. I am keenly aware of the danger of exaggerating the effect of ionizing radiation, which has led to a phobia of radiation and stigma toward those who suffered radiation exposure. However, underestimating these effects can be just as detrimental. And doing so may only be in the interest of certain stakeholders that have the ear of the current administration.</p>
<h2>High-dose radiation kills; what do low doses do?</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240864/original/file-20181016-165903-4ny534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240864/original/file-20181016-165903-4ny534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240864/original/file-20181016-165903-4ny534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240864/original/file-20181016-165903-4ny534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240864/original/file-20181016-165903-4ny534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240864/original/file-20181016-165903-4ny534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240864/original/file-20181016-165903-4ny534.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A man sits on a whole body counter to have his radiation level measured at Citizens’ Radioactivity Measurement Station in Fukushima, Japan. Risks are much higher for children, and no one can say for sure what level of exposure is safe. What’s clear is Fukushima will serve as a test case for long-term exposure to low-dose radiation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Japan-Living-With-Radiation/462c3a3afdcd4de2a056264c213abedf/32/0">AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is important to note that the health effects of high doses of radiation are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1667/RR0763.1">well established</a>. We all know about the horrific effects based on studies of the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the atomic bombs were dropped. Then there was also the recent case of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19647226">Russian defector Alexander Litvenenko</a> who quickly sickened and died 23 days after being poisoned with the radioactive isotope polonium-210 in 2006. </p>
<p>However, the effects of low doses of radiation are not well understood. Part of the reason is that these low doses are difficult to measure. </p>
<p>Current understanding of the health effect of radiation relies primarily on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1667/RR0763.1">a decades-long study</a> of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb attacks. That population was exposed to a one-time large dose of radiation, with individual exposure dependent on where they were at the time of the explosion. </p>
<p>In those high-dose radiation studies, researchers found that there is a proportionate relationship between dose and effect. The way the EPA gauges the effect of low doses of radiation <a href="https://www.epa.gov/radiation/perspective-use-lnt-radiation-protection-and-risk-assessment-us-environmental-protection">draws from these studies</a> as well as studies following other incidents. The current guidelines for the EPA adhere to what is called the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which implies that even low doses of radiation have an effect across a population. Some scientists dubbed it to be a <a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/PT.3.3215">“reverse lottery,”</a> where an unlucky few within a given population will get cancer during their lifetime due to their exposure to radiation. </p>
<p>There have been questions as to <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Materials%20LNT%20Origins%20-%20Jan%20Beyea%20Bulletin%20of%20the%20Atomic%20Scientists.pdf">whether the LNT model is appropriate</a> for measuring cancer risk from low doses of radiation. That’s because when the radiation-induced cancer rate is low, and the sample size is small, there is more statistical uncertainty in the measurement. This allows more wiggle room in putting forward alternative dose-response models such as Calabrese’s, which have little scientific backing but that promise financial benefits for regulated industries.</p>
<p>Overall, the general feeling in the radiation protection community is that for now until new research proves otherwise, the LNT model, because of the lack of understanding of the effect of low doses, is the prudent model to use to set protective limits.</p>
<p>Also, not being able to determine the effect of a low dose of radiation is a problem in measurement, not in the underlying linear threshold model. As doses of radiation decrease, fewer cases of radiation-induced cancers occur, making it more difficult to identify those specific cases. </p>
<p>This is especially true given that cancer is already a common occurrence, making it nearly impossible to disentangle radiation exposure from many other potential cancer risk factors. This is where the analogy with Takata air bags fails, because it is not possible to prove that a specific cancer death is due to ionizing radiation, but this does not make it any less real or significant. </p>
<h2>Who profits if radiation guidelines change</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240859/original/file-20181016-165918-1gfmclc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240859/original/file-20181016-165918-1gfmclc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240859/original/file-20181016-165918-1gfmclc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240859/original/file-20181016-165918-1gfmclc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240859/original/file-20181016-165918-1gfmclc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240859/original/file-20181016-165918-1gfmclc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/240859/original/file-20181016-165918-1gfmclc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An employee walks past storage tanks for contaminated water at the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant of the Tokyo Electric Power Co. Massive amounts of radiation-contaminated water that have been processed and stored in hundreds of tanks at the plant are hindering decommissioning work and pose a safety risk in case another massive quake or tsunami strikes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Japan-Nuclear/4c3cc743bc57406aae00d67d32feb24b/6/0">Tomohiro Ohsumi/Pool Photo via AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-546">EPA issues guidance</a> and sets regulations to “limit discharges of radioactive material affecting members of the public” associated with the nuclear energy industry. The EPA defines what radiation levels are acceptable for a protective cleanup of radioactive contamination at Superfund sites. It also provides guidance on the levels of radiation exposure that would trigger a mass evacuation. It is not surprising that certain stakeholders would welcome modifications in EPA assessment of low-dose radiation exposure given the high costs involved in preventing or cleaning up sites and in compensating victims of such exposure. </p>
<p>Recently, the <a href="https://ncrponline.org">National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements</a> (NCRP) – scientists who provide guidance and recommendations on radiation protection under a mandate from Congress – supported the LNT model. NCRP analyzed <a href="http://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/aad348">29 epidemiological studies</a> and found that the data was “broadly supportive” of the LNT model and that “no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes.” </p>
<p>In fact, the National Academies’ Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, the International Council on Radiation Protection, and other international bodies and regulators all use the LNT model for guidance and radiation protection. </p>
<p>From my perspective, as someone who has worked with radioactive sources, the EPA should be cognizant of the warning by the late Harvard sociologist Daniel Yankelovich that just because an effect can’t be easily quantified does not mean it is not important or does not exist.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104895/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress receives funding from James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) at the Middlebury Insitute of International Studies (MIIS) in Monterey, CA. MIIS/CNS is my employer.</span></em></p>According to most physicists, there is no safe dose of radiation. So why would the EPA consider saying otherwise? Who stands to gain if the EPA declares low-dose radiation harmless?Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress, Scientist-in-Residence and Adjunct Professor, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/585672016-06-29T10:59:20Z2016-06-29T10:59:20ZBikini islanders still deal with fallout of US nuclear tests, more than 70 years later<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127827/original/image-20160622-7154-1ilmm3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'A-Day' marked the first of 23 atomic bomb explosions at Bikini.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofenergy/10561812725">Department of Energy</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1946, French fashion designer Jacques Heim released a woman’s swimsuit he called the “Atome” (French for “atom”) – a name selected to suggest its design would be as shocking to people that summer as the atomic bombings of Japan had been the summer before.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127818/original/image-20160622-7203-3ruapq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127818/original/image-20160622-7203-3ruapq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127818/original/image-20160622-7203-3ruapq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127818/original/image-20160622-7203-3ruapq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127818/original/image-20160622-7203-3ruapq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127818/original/image-20160622-7203-3ruapq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127818/original/image-20160622-7203-3ruapq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127818/original/image-20160622-7203-3ruapq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The scandalous ‘Bikini,’ small enough to fit in a matchbox like the one she’s holding.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Not to be outdone, competitor Louis Réard raised the stakes, quickly releasing an even more skimpy swimsuit. The Vatican found Réard’s swimsuit more than shocking, declaring it to actually be “<a href="http://www.kmswimwear.com/swimwear-timeline/">sinful</a>.” So what did Réard consider an appropriate name for his creation? He called it the “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/fashion/2013/07/history_of_the_bikini_how_it_came_to_america.html">Bikini</a>” – a name meant to shock people even more than “Atome.” But why was this name so shocking?</p>
<p>In the summer of 1946, “Bikini” was all over the news. It’s the name of a small atoll – a circular group of coral islands – within the remote mid-Pacific island chain called the Marshall Islands. The United States had <a href="http://www.rmiembassyus.org/History.htm">assumed control</a> of the former Japanese territory after the end of World War II, just a few months earlier.</p>
<p>The United States soon came up with some very big plans for the little atoll of Bikini. After forcing the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/27/a-ground-zero-forgotten/">167 residents</a> to relocate to another atoll, they started to prepare Bikini as an atomic bomb test site. Two test bombings scheduled for that summer were intended to be very visible demonstrations of the United States’ newly acquired nuclear might. <a href="http://time.com/3881386/able-and-baker-photos-from-atomic-bomb-tests-july-1946/">Media coverage</a> of the happenings at Bikini was extensive, and public interest ran very high. Who could have foreseen that even now – 70 years later – the Marshall Islanders would still be suffering the aftershocks from the nuclear bomb testing on Bikini Atoll?</p>
<iframe src="https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m18!1m12!1m3!1d54947715.810362644!2d105.33242446439374!3d16.125137160675283!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!3m3!1m2!1s0x644c2180a24fadbf%3A0x4c3f21ce9753a027!2sBikini+Atoll!5e1!3m2!1sen!2sus!4v1466621329499" width="100%" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<h2>The big plan for tiny Bikini</h2>
<p>According to the testing schedule, the U.S. plan was to demolish a 95-vessel <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flash/july/bikini46.htm">fleet of obsolete warships</a> on June 30, 1946 with an airdropped atomic bomb. Reporters, U.S. politicians, and representatives from the major governments of the world would witness events from distant <a href="http://time.com/3881386/able-and-baker-photos-from-atomic-bomb-tests-july-1946/">observation ships</a>. On July 24, a second bomb, this time detonated underwater, would destroy any surviving naval vessels.</p>
<p>These two sequential tests were intended to allow comparison of air-detonated versus underwater-detonated atomic bombs in terms of destructive power to warships. The very future of naval warfare in the advent of the atomic bomb was in the balance. Many assumed the tests would clearly show that <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Operation-Crossroads-Atomic-Tests-Bikini/dp/1557509190">naval ships were now obsolete</a>, and that air forces represented the future of global warfare.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MV3fQterjEg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Slow motion film of atomic bomb airdropped on Bikini Atoll.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But when June 30 arrived, the airdrop bombing didn’t go as planned. The bomber <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2002/aug/06/travelnews.nuclearindustry.environment">missed his target by more than a third of a mile</a>, so the bomb caused much less ship damage than anticipated.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x_LrBm5oVRk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Color film of underwater atomic bomb near Marshall Islands.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The subsequent underwater bomb detonation didn’t go so well either. It unexpectedly produced a spray of highly radioactive water that extensively contaminated everything it landed on. Naval inspectors couldn’t even return to the area to assess ship damage because of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKH437o14vA">threat of deadly radiation doses</a> from the bomb’s “<a href="https://www.ready.gov/nuclear-blast">fallout</a>” – the radioactivity produced by the explosion. All future bomb testing was canceled until the military could evaluate what had gone wrong and come up with another testing strategy.</p>
<h2>And even more bombings to follow</h2>
<p>The United States did not, however, abandon little Bikini. It had even bigger plans with bigger bombs in mind. Ultimately, there would be 23 Bikini test bombings, spread over 12 years, comparing different bomb sizes, before the United States finally moved nuclear bomb testing to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY">other locations</a>, leaving Bikini to recover as best it could.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127830/original/image-20160622-7158-1n1hzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127830/original/image-20160622-7158-1n1hzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127830/original/image-20160622-7158-1n1hzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127830/original/image-20160622-7158-1n1hzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127830/original/image-20160622-7158-1n1hzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127830/original/image-20160622-7158-1n1hzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127830/original/image-20160622-7158-1n1hzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127830/original/image-20160622-7158-1n1hzb0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">1956 Operation Redwing bombing at Enewetak Atoll.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/photos/photodetails.aspx?ID=1060">National Nuclear Security Administration / Nevada Field Office</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The most dramatic change in the testing at Bikini occurred in 1954, when the bomb designs switched from fission to fusion mechanisms. <a href="http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb4.htm">Fission bombs</a> – the type dropped on Japan – explode when heavy elements like uranium split apart. <a href="http://www.livescience.com/53280-hydrogen-bomb-vs-atomic-bomb.html">Fusion bombs</a>, in contrast, explode when light atoms like deuterium join together. Fusion bombs, often called “hydrogen” or “thermonuclear” bombs, can produce much larger explosions.</p>
<p>The United States military learned about the power of fusion energy the hard way, when they first tested a fusion bomb on Bikini. Based on the expected size of the explosion, a swath of the Pacific Ocean the size of Wisconsin was blockaded to protect ships from entering the fallout zone.</p>
<p>On March 1, 1954, the bomb detonated just as planned – but still there were a couple of problems. The bomb turned out to be 1,100 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb, rather than the expected 450 times. And the prevailing westerly winds turned out to be stronger than meteorologists had predicted. The result? Widespread fallout contamination to islands hundreds of miles downwind from the test site and, consequently, <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">high radiation exposures to the Marshall Islanders</a> who lived on them.</p>
<h2>Dealing with the fallout, for decades</h2>
<p>Three days after the detonation of the bomb, radioactive dust had settled on the ground of downwind islands to depths up to half an inch. Natives from badly contaminated islands were evacuated to Kwajalein – an upwind, uncontaminated atoll that was home to a large U.S. military base – where their health status was assessed.</p>
<p>Residents of the Rongelap Atoll – Bikini’s downwind neighbor – received particularly high radiation doses. They had burns on their skin and depressed blood counts. Islanders from other atolls did not receive doses high enough to induce such symptoms. However, as I explain in my book <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">“Strange Glow: The Story of Radiation,”</a> even those who didn’t have any radiation sickness at the time received doses high enough to put them at increased cancer risk, particularly for thyroid cancers and leukemia.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127822/original/image-20160622-7170-hcoj8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127822/original/image-20160622-7170-hcoj8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127822/original/image-20160622-7170-hcoj8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127822/original/image-20160622-7170-hcoj8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127822/original/image-20160622-7170-hcoj8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127822/original/image-20160622-7170-hcoj8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127822/original/image-20160622-7170-hcoj8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127822/original/image-20160622-7170-hcoj8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Marshall Islands resident has his body levels of radioactivity checked in a U.S. government lab.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/argonne/8167845013">Argonne National Laboratory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://majuro.usembassy.gov/legacy.html">What happened to the Marshall Islanders next</a> is a sad story of their constant relocation from island to island, trying to avoid the radioactivity that lingered for decades. Over the years following the testing, the Marshall Islanders living on the fallout-contaminated islands ended up breathing, absorbing, drinking and eating considerable amounts of radioactivity.</p>
<p>In the 1960s, cancers started to appear among the islanders. For almost 50 years, the United States government studied their health and provided medical care. But the <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-human-radiation-experiments-9780195107920?cc=us&lang=en">government study ended in 1998</a>, and the islanders were then expected to find their own medical care and submit their radiation-related health bills to a <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/filmmore/reference/primary/tribunal.html">Nuclear Claims Tribunal</a>, in order to collect compensation.</p>
<h2>Marshall Islanders still waiting for justice</h2>
<p>By 2009, the Nuclear Claims Tribunal, funded by Congress and overseen by Marshall Islands judges to pay compensation for radiation-related health and property claims, exhausted its allocated funds with <a href="http://majuro.usembassy.gov/legacy.html#_compensation">US$45.8 million in personal injury claims</a> still owed the victims. At present, about half of the valid claimants have died waiting for their compensation. Congress shows no inclination to replenish the empty fund, so it’s unlikely the remaining survivors will ever see their money.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127833/original/image-20160622-7154-1d7gidm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127833/original/image-20160622-7154-1d7gidm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127833/original/image-20160622-7154-1d7gidm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127833/original/image-20160622-7154-1d7gidm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127833/original/image-20160622-7154-1d7gidm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127833/original/image-20160622-7154-1d7gidm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127833/original/image-20160622-7154-1d7gidm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/127833/original/image-20160622-7154-1d7gidm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ten years after bombing ended, the U.S. government assured Marshall Islanders a safe return.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofenergy/10561566153/">Department of Energy</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But if the Marshall Islanders cannot get financial compensation, perhaps they can still win a moral victory. They hope to force the United States and eight other nuclear weapons states into keeping another broken promise, this one made via the <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/">Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons</a>.</p>
<p>This international agreement between <a href="http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt">191 sovereign nations</a> entered into force in 1970 and was renewed indefinitely in 1995. It aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and work toward disarmament. </p>
<p>In 2014, the Marshall Islands claimed that the nine nuclear-armed nations – China, Britain, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States – have not fulfilled their treaty obligations. The Marshall Islanders are <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-03-07/marshall-islands-begins-world-court-nuclear-disarmament-case">seeking legal action</a> in the United Nations International Court of Justice in The Hague. They’ve asked the court to require these countries to take substantive action toward nuclear disarmament. Despite the fact that India, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan are not among the 191 nations that are signatories of the treaty, the Marshall Islands’ suit still contends that these four nations “have the obligation under customary international law to pursue [disarmament] negotiations in good faith.”</p>
<p>The process is currently stalled due to jurisdictional squabbling. Regardless, experts in international law say the <a href="https://armscontrollaw.com/2014/04/24/marshall-islands-brings-lawsuits-against-all-nine-nuclear-weapons-possessing-states-in-the-international-court-of-justice/">prospects for success</a> through this David versus Goliath approach are slim.</p>
<p>But even if they don’t win in the courtroom, the Marshall Islands might shame these nations in the court of public opinion and draw new attention to the dire human consequences of nuclear weapons. That in itself can be counted as a small victory, for a people who have seldom been on the winning side of anything. Time will tell how this all turns out, but more than 70 years since the first bomb test, the Marshall Islanders are well accustomed to waiting.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58567/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy J. Jorgensen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the summer of 1946, the U.S. government detonated the first of many atomic bomb tests in the Marshall Islands. Seventy years of radiation exposure later, residents are still fighting for justice.Timothy J. Jorgensen, Director of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection Graduate Program and Associate Professor of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/584522016-04-26T15:22:27Z2016-04-26T15:22:27ZWhat we learned from Chernobyl about how radiation affects our bodies<p>The world has never seen a nuclear accident as severe as the one that unfolded when a reactor exploded in Chernobyl on April 26 1986, sending vast amounts of radiation into the skies around Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.</p>
<p>The planet had experienced massive releases like this before, in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But Chernobyl-related radiation exposure had a more protracted character. </p>
<p>It was the first time in history that such a large population, particularly at a very young age, was exposed to radioactive isotopes, namely iodine-131 and cesium-137, not just through direct exposure, but through eating contaminated food as well. </p>
<p>In 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22037/full">published estimates</a> of how many excess cancers would occur as a result of this contamination. </p>
<p>While noting that these estimates are subject to substantial uncertainty, the authors found that 1,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 4,000 cases of other cancers had already been caused by the accident. They further estimated that by 2065, 16,000 cases of thyroid cancer and 25,000 cases of other cancers could be attributed to the effects of Chernobyl radiation.</p>
<p>Research on the health impact of the Chernobyl disaster has mainly focused on <a href="http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2007/11000/THYROID_CANCER_INCIDENCE_AMONG_PEOPLE_LIVING_IN.15.aspx">thyroid cancer</a>, in particular in those exposed to radioactive iodine isotopes in childhood and adolescence. Large amounts of iodine-131 were released into the atmosphere after the explosion, and children were exposed by consuming locally produced milk and vegetables.</p>
<p>Efforts were made to better understand the mechanisms of radiation-induced thyroid cancer and which factors could modify the radiation risk. This allowed us to identify a molecular “radiation fingerprint”, which can point to changes that are specific to radiation exposure, as opposed to any other factors. </p>
<p>Studies were also conducted to evaluate the risk of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19138033">haematological malignancies</a> – tumours that affect the blood, bone marrow, lymph, and lymphatic system – in children and Chernobyl clean-up workers in the three most affected countries. Studies of cancer incidence and mortality, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107017/">cardiovascular diseases</a> and all-cause mortality were also conducted on clean-up workers. Although of variable quality, the list of studies done on people affected by the blast is long. </p>
<h2>What we found</h2>
<p>Today, there is an overall agreement among scientist that thyroid cancers increased following exposure to radiation in childhood and adolescence. Several studies have also indicated an increase in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16614710">haematological malignancies</a> and thyroid cancer in Chernobyl clean-up workers.</p>
<p><a href="http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/121/1/ehp.1204996.pdf">Findings</a> on radiation-associated risk both for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and other types of leukaemia in clean-up workers were reported in 2013. Before then, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia was not considered to be sensitive to radiation. Further research will be required to confirm these findings. </p>
<p>Some studies focused on non-cancer health consequences of exposure to radiation. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17390731">Convincing results</a> on eye lens cataracts among Chernobyl clean-up workers led to the revision and considerable reduction in the recommended radiation dose limit for the lens of the eye. </p>
<p>Chernobyl also led to a greater knowledge on optimising treatment and follow-up of survivors of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18049222">acute radiation sickness</a>. A better understanding of thyroid cancer radiation risks allowed us to respond better to other disasters, such as Fukushima, to minimise potential adverse health consequences.</p>
<h2>What we still don’t know</h2>
<p>Despite these important findings, many grey areas still remain. For example, we still have no convincing evidence for childhood leukaemia associated with Chernobyl. It is unclear if this is due to methodological limitations or for other reasons. </p>
<p>Nor do we know how radiation risk changes over time after a someone is exposed as a child, as a longer follow-up study is required. We also don’t yet understand the potential transgenerational affects on children born to exposed parents. </p>
<p>The need for more research is immense, yet funding is declining. We need a sustainable approach to Chernobyl health research – similar to that taken after the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33856/">Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in Japan</a>. Without this, it is unlikely that the true impact of Chernobyl will ever be fully understood.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58452/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ausrele Kesminiene ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>Chernobyl is already responsible for up to 5,000 cases of cancer in Europe.Ausrele Kesminiene, Deputy Section Head Section of Environment and Radiation at IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/579422016-04-25T13:49:12Z2016-04-25T13:49:12ZForget Fukushima: Chernobyl still holds record as worst nuclear accident for public health<p>The 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents both share the notorious distinction of attaining the highest accident rating on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) <a href="http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp">scale of nuclear accidents</a>. No other reactor incident has ever received this Level 7 “major accident” designation in the history of nuclear power. Chernobyl and Fukushima earned it because both involved core meltdowns that released significant amounts of radioactivity to their surroundings.</p>
<p>Both of these accidents involved evacuation of hundreds of thousands of residents. Both still have people waiting to return to their homes. And both left a legacy of large-scale radioactive contamination of the environment that will persist for years to come, despite ongoing cleanup efforts.</p>
<p>So the tendency is to think of these accidents as similar events that happened in different countries, 25 years apart.</p>
<p>But the IAEA scale isn’t designed to measure public health impact. In terms of health ramifications, these two nuclear accidents were not even in the same league. While <a href="http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/">Fukushima</a> involved radioactivity exposures to hundred of thousands of people, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html">Chernobyl</a> exposed hundreds of millions. And millions of those received substantially more exposure than the people of Fukushima.</p>
<p>On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, we do well to reflect on the health burden it caused – and compare it with what we expect to see from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear accident. As I report in my book “<a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">Strange Glow: The Story of Radiation</a>,” from a public health standpoint, there’s really no comparison between the two events. </p>
<h2>Higher doses of radiation, more health harm</h2>
<p>Chernobyl was by far the worst reactor accident of all time. A total of 127 reactor workers, firemen and emergency personnel on site sustained radiation doses sufficient to cause radiation sickness (over 1,000 mSv); some received doses high enough to be lethal (over 5,000 mSv). Over the subsequent six months, <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">54 died from their radiation exposure</a>. And it’s been estimated that 22 of the 110,645 cleanup workers may have <a href="https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/11/13087/chernobyl-cleanup-workers-had-significantly-increased-risk-leukemia">contracted fatal leukemias</a> over the next 25 years.</p>
<p>In contrast, at Fukushima, there were no radiation doses high enough to produce radiation sickness, even among the reactor core workers. Two Fukushima workers who had leaky respirators received effective doses of <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">590 mSv and 640 mSv</a>. That’s above the Japanese occupational limit for conducting lifesaving rescue work (250 mSv), but still below the threshold for radiation sickness (1,000 mSv). Due to their exposure, the two workers’ lifetime cancer risks will <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10691.html">increase about 3 percent</a> (from the 25 percent background cancer risk rate to about 28 percent), but they are unlikely to experience other health consequences.</p>
<p>Beyond just the plant workers, over 572 million people among 40 different countries got at least some exposure to Chernobyl radioactivity. (Neither the United States nor Japan was among the exposed countries.) It took two decades to fully assess the cancer consequences to these people. Finally, in 2006, an international team of scientists completed a comprehensive <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22037">analysis of the dose and health data</a> and reported on the cancer deaths that could be attributed to Chernobyl radioactivity.</p>
<p>Their detailed analysis included countrywide estimates of individual radiation doses in all 40 exposed countries, and regionwide estimates for the most highly contaminated regions of the most highly contaminated countries (Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine).</p>
<p>Using statistical models, the scientists predicted a total of 22,800 radiation-induced cancers, excluding thyroid cancers, among this group of 572 million people. Thyroid cancer warranted separate special scrutiny, as we will discuss presently; this hormonally important gland is uniquely affected by a specific radioactive isotope, iodine-131.</p>
<p>So that’s 22,800 non-thyroid cancers in addition to the approximately 194 million cancer cases that would normally be expected in a population of that size, even in the absence of a Chernobyl accident. The increase from 194,000,000 to 194,022,800 is a 0.01 percent rise in the overall cancer rate. That’s too small to have any measurable impact on the cancer incidence rates for any national cancer registries, so these predicted values will likely remain theoretical.</p>
<h2>Chernobyl’s iodine-131 thyroid effects far worse</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, at Chernobyl, the one type of cancer that could have easily been prevented was not. The population surrounding Chernobyl was not warned that iodine-131 – a radioactive fission product that can enter the food chain – had contaminated milk and other locally produced agricultural products. Consequently, people ate iodine-131-contaminated food, resulting in thyroid cancers.</p>
<p>For the local population, iodine-131 exposure was a worst-case scenario because they were already <a href="http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/">suffering from an iodine-deficient diet</a>; their <a href="http://www.thyroid.org/iodine-deficiency/">iodine-starved thyroids</a> sucked up any iodine that became available. This extremely unfortunate situation would not have happened in countries such as the United States or Japan, where diets are richer in iodine.</p>
<p>Thyroid cancer is rare, with a low background incidence compared to other cancers. So excess thyroid cancers due to iodine-131 can be more readily spotted in cancer registries. And this, in fact, has been the case for Chernobyl. Beginning five years after the accident, an increase in the rate of thyroid cancers started and continued rising over the following decades. Scientists estimate that there will ultimately be about <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22037">16,000 excess thyroid cancers</a> produced as a result of iodine-131 exposure from Chernobyl.</p>
<p>At Fukushima, in contrast, there was much less iodine-131 exposure. The affected population was smaller, local people were advised to avoid local dairy products due to possible contamination and they did not have iodine-deficient diets.</p>
<p>Consequently, typical radiation doses to the thyroid were low. Iodine-131 uptake into the thyroids of exposed people was measured and the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep00507">doses were estimated to average</a> just 4.2 mSv for children and 3.5 mSv for adults – levels comparable to annual background radiation doses of approximately 3.0 mSv per year.</p>
<p>Contrast this to Chernobyl, where a significant proportion of the local population received thyroid doses in excess of 200 mSv – 50 times more – well high enough to see appreciable amounts of excess thyroid cancer. So at Fukushima, where iodine-131 doses approached background levels, we wouldn’t expect thyroid cancer to present the problem that it did at Chernobyl. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, there has already been one report that <a href="http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20160307/p2a/00m/0na/022000c">claims there is an increase</a> in thyroid cancer among Fukushima residents at just four years post-accident. That’s earlier than would be expected based on the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601860">Chernobyl experience</a>. And the study’s design has been criticized as flawed for a number of scientific reasons, including the <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/mystery-cancers-are-cropping-children-aftermath-fukushima">comparison methods used</a>. Thus, this report of excess thyroid cancers must be considered suspect <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyv191">until better data arrive</a>.</p>
<h2>Chernobyl has no comparison</h2>
<p>In short, Chernobyl is by far the worst nuclear power plant accident of all time. It was a totally human-made event – <a href="http://pegasusbooks.com/books/atomic-accidents-9781605984926-hardcover">a “safety” test gone terribly awry</a> – made worse by incompetent workers who did all the wrong things when attempting to avert a meltdown.</p>
<p>Fukushima in contrast, was an unfortunate natural disaster – caused by a tsunami that flooded reactor basements – and the workers acted responsibly to mitigate the damage despite loss of electrical power.</p>
<p>April 26, 1986 was the darkest day in the history of nuclear power. Thirty years later, there is no rival that comes even close to Chernobyl in terms of public health consequences; certainly not Fukushima. We must be vigilant to ensure nothing like Chernobyl ever happens again. We don’t want to be “celebrating” any more anniversaries like this one.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57942/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy J. Jorgensen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The meltdown at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 exposed 572 million people to radiation. No other nuclear accident holds a candle to that level of public health impact.Timothy J. Jorgensen, Director of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection Graduate Program and Associate Professor of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.